10. "Comitology
| (24138)
15878/02
COM(02) 719
| Draft Council Decision amending Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission.
|
| Legal base | Articles 202 and 211 EC; consultation; unanimity
|
| Document originated | 11 December 2002
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 7 January 2003
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 4 September 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-xii (2002-03), paragraph 4 (12 February 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date fixed
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
10.1 Comitology is the system of committees which oversees the
exercise by the European Commission of legislative powers delegated
to it by the Council and the European Parliament. "Comitology"
committees are made up of representatives of the Member States
and chaired by the Commission. Under Council Decision 1999/468/EC,
which currently governs the comitology process, there are three
types of procedure (advisory, management and regulatory),
an important difference between which is the degree of involvement
and power of Member States' representatives.
10.2 Comitology has come under criticism as forming
part of the EU's "democratic deficit". The Commission's
proposal addresses many of the criticisms made of comitology,
and seeks to reform the existing comitology process in several
ways. First the proposal seeks to strengthen the role of the
European Parliament in the comitology decision-making process.
Secondly, the Commission proposes to reduce the number of Committee
procedures from three to two. Thirdly, it envisages that the
choice between the two remaining procedures in relation to measures
adopted under co-decision should be prescribed and no longer left
to the discretion of the legislating institution.
10.3 In his earlier Explanatory Memorandum of 21
January 2003, the Minister for Europe at the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Mr Denis MacShane) indicated that the Government agreed
there was a need to reform the present system of comitology but
had a number of reservations about the Commission's proposal.
First, the Minister questioned whether the proposed legal bases
for the measure were adequate or whether their adoption required
a Treaty change. Secondly, the Minister expressed some concern
about the proposed reduction of committee procedures on the grounds
that the lighter advisory procedure, which would assume
greater importance under the proposal, did not accord Member States
the same degree of influence as under other existing procedures.
Thirdly, the Minister emphasised that reform of comitology was
being debated at the Convention on the Future of Europe and that
the Government would prefer to defer final consideration of the
proposal in the light of further discussions in the Convention.
10.4 In our previous Report, we endorsed the Minister's
concerns about the proposals. In particular, we shared his reservations
about the adequacy of the proposed legal base for the measure,
and we asked him for further explanation on this point. We also
asked whether he thought the proposal would strengthen the powers
of the Commission under comitology and, if so, whether he intended
to oppose the proposal on this ground.
The Minister's letter
10.5 In his letter of 4 September 2003, the Minister
writes as follows:
"In my Explanatory Memorandum of 21 January
2003, I stated that the Government would be giving careful consideration
as to whether the Commission proposal went beyond the scope of
the existing Treaties (Article 202 TEC) by giving additional powers
to the European Parliament in comitology. We are awaiting advice
from the Council Legal Service on this point.
"Your Committee also raised concerns over the
proposed change in the use of the different comitology procedures,
in particular the fact that the proposal would no longer allow
the management procedure to be used for implementing measures
adopted by the co-decision procedure. My preference would be
to retain the flexibility of the three existing procedures (i.e.
regulatory, management and advisory), which has worked well hitherto.
We are nevertheless examining whether some measures currently
adopted under the management procedure could move to the lighter
advisory procedure. But we are clear that the adoption of time-sensitive,
health, health and safety and safeguard-type measures in the veterinary
and phyto-sanitary field, as well as implementing measures in
areas not subject to co-decision, should continue to be subject
to the existing regulatory procedure."
10.6 The Minister adds that he will keep us informed
about progress in the Friends of the Presidency Group on Comitology.
Conclusion
10.7 We thank the Minister for his clarification
of the Government's position in relation to the proposed reduction
in the number of comitology committee procedures and we support
his view that the adoption of time-sensitive and health-related
measures, as well as implementing measures in areas not subject
to co-decision, should continue to be subject to the existing
regulatory procedures. We ask the Minister whether this list
is meant to be exhaustive, so that the Government would be happy
to see any other measure adopted under the advisory procedure.
10.8 We look forward to receiving further information
concerning the advice of the Council's legal service on whether
the proposed measures require a change in the Treaty.
10.9 We shall continue to hold the proposal under
scrutiny until we have received further information from the Minister.
| 
